5.2.1 Articulation Theory and Critical Pedagogy
As mentioned briefly in the early description of methods for analysis, Mouffe’s (1993) articulation theory is a framework useful for understanding the constitution of sociopolitical identities – such as that of activist. Through her post-structuralist ontology of political theory, Mouffe forwarded a conception of radical democratic citizenship that is focused on the embodied actions of individual subjects in pluralistic democratic politics. It is here that she introduced articulation theory to account for how individual subjective identities emerge from social discourses.
Mouffe’s work has been written about in relationship to critical pedagogy, to teach youth to adapt to changing discourse positions while enhancing reflexive agency, empowerment and social responsibility (Nadesan & Elenes, 2008). I use the framework here to extend my analysis to a second discursive level beyond an acute literacy focus. In doing so, I identify connections and divergences between participants’ articulation of their activist identities, contexts where they organize and material conditions through which they form subjectivities.
Mouffe’s equation of articulation theory essentially states that relational elements (signifiers that lack meaning in themselves) achieve significance (social meaning) when articulated by/through social discourse in moments of socio-historical contexts. For each of the participants, their different understandings of activism and themselves as activists were created through moments in their lives. Extracting elements such as tactics, organizations, interlocutors, issues, texts and locations is key to understanding how participants define themselves as activists in relation to their moment. From running teach-ins and staging boycotts to organizing protests and lobbying politicians, these youth created meaning in relation to their moment.
The central point here relates to the articulation of identities in fluid discursive spaces of human rights activism. Moments of activism exist in multiple instantiations, where signification is best understood as continually shifting. Mouffe’s work is useful in this study by complicating struggles over meaning and value around terms such as social justice and processes such as civil disobedience. Policy initiatives give way to further advocacy and direct action that result in new models of organizing community resources. Looking through these few moments, it is possible to decipher elements of youth activists becoming activist.
At the end of each youth study above, I read the interview data to map trajectories of the youth articulating their activist identities. The youth involved in this study collectively articulate their activist identities in a host of different ways. Together, the participants each articulated a discursive position that defers judgment so that more open-ended learning and development can take place. As youth activists, they remembered the workshops from Global Kids and other youth development organizations as moments of powerful learning. They invited multiple voices as they fought for people they did not know. One question that came up time and again was a query of why ideological lines have to dictate the terms of action for any organizers.
There is much left to debate around the definitions of activism and organizing and the use of the terms. Through Mouffe (1993), it is clear that there are commonalities in the articulation of each of the youth activists. They articulated the need for educative spaces that were safe and inquiry-based, they spoke to the influence of family, friends and community on the organizing work that they do. They shared priorities around immigration, LGBTQ rights, information security and access to quality education. These major themes are reflective of the current domestic and geopolitical landscape. Beyond policy, they are all defined by the action that they take. Around shared concepts of collectivity and bringing stakeholders together, they are characterized by their orientation as anti-oppressive, radically non-violent, and morally pluralist. This relates to the ethical notion of alterity out of which Mouffe’s (1993) writing is based, the recognition that one can only understand one’s self by understanding the other.
Of course, as a writer and an outsider, I can’t say what they intrinsically state by articulating their activist identities everyday. They demonstrate through their multiple perspectives and critical approach to research and outreach that there is benefit in not being stuck in a position on an issue. It’s not about fixity. It is about identifying in relation to moments of struggle. The participants demonstrated that actions are defined as activist in relation to the discussion of their operation. They are activist individuals, responding to social conditions of inequity and injustice. These youth position themselves in ways that are highly political and yet different from one another. This is neither theoretical nor rhetorical. Although there is value in deferral of definitions of organizing and activism, there are implications for naming positions, campaigning around values, creating sustainable actions and investing in community building.
The idea of becoming remains crucial here in recognition of the endless equivalences that can be made because both discourses and subjectivities which are always processive.
Mouffe’s model forces us to focus on the development and construction of individual subjectivities that are able and willing to participate in democratic politics. Specifically, this work involves doing so in ways that contribute to them becoming border-crossers who politicize issues, recognize and respect difference, and value dialogue toward ethical action.